linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 00/10] gpiolib: more quirks to handle legacy names

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CACRpkda_BbpNa+OLz=9vYuMbBNyWi4RBfoDS8F_gtc+vP_Fgyg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 20 Oct 2022 10:00:01 +0200
From:   Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>,
        Alexander Stein <alexander.stein@...tq-group.com>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org,
        Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@...aro.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 00/10] gpiolib: more quirks to handle legacy names

On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 1:16 PM Andy Shevchenko
<andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 12:56:31PM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 2:32 PM Andy Shevchenko

> > > I was wondering if we can use the approach that ACPI chose for itself,
> > > i.e.  the separate data that can be filled by the corresponding driver
> > > and then GPIO OF common code may use it. In that case each driver knows
> > > the exact list of compatible strings and associated quirks.
> >
> > I actually deliverately chose the other way around, to centralize all quirks,
> > so that drivers look nice and simple and the ugly historical errors of the
> > device tree be hidden away in gpiolib-of.c.
>
> This makes sense if and only if we may guarantee no quirks will appear in the
> future. So, it may be true for DT, but I'm quite skeptical about ACPI...

Right, the idea is to stop more idiomatic DT bindings from coming into existance
by review and formal verification of the reviewed bindings by using
YAML schemas.

ACPI is somewhat lacking public review of "bindings" and DSDT tables, and I
don't know if there is some counterpart to the schema validation, so that
makes for more new bugs. But maybe ACPI has some tricks up its sleeve that I
don't know about. To me it seems like bugs in ACPI are discovered by developers
after the devices are already produced :/

There are bindings and device trees which lack public review too, most notably
Apple Mac, so especially for them we are redefining new bindings and
who knows, maybe Apple will pick them up eventually!

Yours,
Linus Walleij